Dear Craig,
Please read the report about the suffering and pain of the person dear to me (https://bit.ly/3Aks5bd; blog: https://bit.ly/3AwJj5z) like millions of other people who suffer because they discovered tumors at stage 3 or 4.
We are not on this planet to show our power in suppressing others but to use logical reasoning to understand the laws of nature for improving the quality of life to everyone and to use compassion to alleviate suffering.
I am so surprise and I cannot explain your hatred toward me that is manifesting with your actions and seems not going away. We should address this as responsible professionals. If there is anything I did to cause you hatred toward me let me know.
This year, rather then providing what you promised in your email when informing that my paper was rejected stating: “detailed feedback regarding why your submission was not accepted, please respond to this message”, I did not receive any reason, instead I saw on my IEEE account that you posted in less than one minute five copy of my rejection. (see Figure 14).
In 2018 you sent me the rejection email in a single string of 9,972 characters, one next to the other, impossible to read (see below), while you sent the same email to other colleagues in a formatted form that they could read. I diligently with patience separated the words and the paragraphs making it readable, I rebut to the reviewer’s illogical claims and wrong calculations but I never received a feedback from you.
When I went to the 2018 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Sydney, Australia, your hatred attitude toward me was expressed with your behavior that I feared at some point being harmed physically.
What has triggered such a fury toward me? I am just trying to respectfully make some point that are logical to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge. If you disagree on something, just express your disagreement without all these subtle hostile actions.
But more important I would like to get in peace with you and find a way to communicate professionally. I have been trying to do so since when I gave a seminar at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) on September 24th, 2009, when I have shown the slides regarding the PET compared to the water meter, anemometer and I remember you asking question and disagreeing. (I had shown the slides of Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this document).
If there is anything I said to you that I must take notice, it will be important to find out. I have a record of all the emails we exchanged and I have also the videorecording of the Seminar I gave at BNL on 9/24/2009 when you were present with the Biology Department and the Physics Department of BNL.
So, please let me know and I am still interested to receive the detailed reasons why my abstract was rejected this year as well as the feedback regarding my rebuttal of last review (https://bit.ly/3pjU2gH) invalidating the incorrect statements of your reviewer.
I remember asking the following:
“Please could you provide a scientific reason for the rejection and please could you also provide a reference to another project, idea or approach that can compete in higher or equal performance and lower cost in building a Fully Programmable Level-1 Trigger System Capable of executing Fast, Multidimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms on Ultra-High Speed Data Arriving in Parallel from a Matrix of Thousands of Transducers. For comparison could you please refer to a system with 8,192 Channels (or scale the cost to a system of that dimension), Extracts all valuable information from 80 million events/second (radiation) from over a billion collisions/second contained in a cube with 36 cm side at approximately $100,000 for each duplicate (based on quotes received in the fall 2015)?”
Thank you,
Kind Regards,
Dario
Figure 15. instead of providing detailed reasons for the rejection of my papers, Craig Woody posts on my IEEE account in less than 1 minute, five copies of the same rejection message.
From: IEEE 2018 NSS/MIC/RTSD <abstract@eventclass.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 6:52 AM
To: info@3d-computing.com; crosettodario@gmail.com
Subject: IEEE 2018 NSS/MIC/RTSD – Re: 2018 NSS Reject Notice for Abstract #2122
|
| Dear Dario, All papers were reviewed by an independent set of reviewers and the decision on which ones were selected for the conference was based on technical content, innovation and originality. Based on the opinions of the reviewers and the Topic Conveners for the session to which you submitted your abstract, it was felt that the level of innovation and originality was not sufficient to justify acceptance into this year’s program. Please find below several of the reviewers comments. Best regards, Craig Woody 2018 NSS Co-Chair Reviewer 1 This paper is an accumulation of claims but does not provide any supporting evidence whatsoever. It remains unclear in which way the “Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm” actually functions. There is a bold claim that “all” information can be extracted from 8192 channels, thereby out-performing current trigger farms at the LHC. The LHC experiments have many more than 8192 channels, and execute trigger algorithms with input channel counts far exceeding this number. This would necessitate hundreds of such crates, and the required interconnects. 8192 channels would be a much too narrow key-hole view of a LHC collision for any of the experiments. Neither would such a narrow 8192-channel view allow one to calibrate “all parts of the instrument”. The presentation is more than vague on the hardware. What technology is (or would be) used in those 3D-Flow processors? Who would build them? From the “26 instructions in less than 3ns” number I calculate a processing speed of about 115 MIPS, roughly equivalent to a 1994-vintage Motorola 68060 CPU, which is in line with the general age of the described technology. There are no power consumption figures (other than that it is “low”) for the 43008 3D processors. There are no physical dimensions given, and no information about the type of internal interconnects. Extraordinary claims such as this one require extraordinary proof. None of that is presented here. I have no choice than to recommend to reject this paper. Reviewer 2 The author might be a genius but the material shown fails to even hint it. The content is unclear, controversial, at some places it is disrespectful, if not insulting and defamatory towards some people. I have nothing against this author, but this behavior is clearly unacceptable in a scientific community. Reviewer 3 For this contribution is hard to understand the motivation and interested for the audience. Probably not suited for this conference On 7/30/2018 10:19 PM, 3D-Computing, Inc. wrote: > > Dear Craig and reviewers of the 2018 IEEE-RTSD, > > I regret you have not accepted my paper #2122. > > Please could you provide a scientific reason for the rejection and please could you also provide a reference to another project, idea or approach that can compete in higher or equal performance and lower cost in building a Fully Programmable Level-1 Trigger System Capable of executing Fast, Multidimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms on Ultra-High Speed Data Arriving in Parallel from a Matrix of Thousands of Transducers. For comparison could you please refer to a system with 8,192 Channels (or scale the cost to a system of that dimension), Extracts all valuable information from 80 million events/second (radiation) from over a billion collisions/second contained in a cube with 36 cm side at approximately $100,000 for each duplicate (based on quotes received in the fall 2015)? > > Craig, I believe you attended my seminar at BNL in 2009 when I was invited by Ralph James and I presented my 3D-Flow project before experts in instrumentation. If you did not attend, you could ask your colleagues that I was able to answer satisfactorily to all questions. This can be proven by the video that we recorded of the seminar and the discussion that followed with your colleagues. Now I have 59 quotes from 21 reputable industries proving feasibility to build a system with 50,000 x 3D-Flow processors contained in a 36 cm cube that can handle up to 8,192 channels at 1.3TB/sec costing approximately $100,000 (based on quotes received in the fall of 2015. Because my invention is technology independent, the use of current technology will provide higher performance that would be of interest to the scientific community). > > The summary of my #2122 paper summarize in one figure the entire 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger System (goo.gl/w3XlZ1) capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured can replace many crates of electronics of the current experiments at CERN with a single crate, providing a much more powerful system and a staggering increase in performance at a much lower cost. The proposal also details the verifiable capabilities of not only checking the functionality and performance of the 3D-Flow system but also whether the electronics installed in the detector at CERN (or other site) are working properly by recording the trigger raw data at the LHC bunch-crossing rate and analyzing whether each of the 8,192 channels provide the expected value. This feature is also important for the calibration of all parts of the instruments (CMS, Atlas, etc.). > > The 3D-Flow OPRA is a new electronic instrument and device to solve target application problems of fast, real-time multi-dimensional Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition (OPRA) on data arriving in parallel from a matrix of thousands of transducers at a very high speed that are sent to an equivalent matrix of thousands of 3D-Flow processors. It extracts ALL valuable information from e.g. radiation at the lowest cost per each valid data captured, by executing specialized instructions (or “OPRA steps” for an optimized Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithm). At each “step” each processor in the array of thousands of 3D-Flow processors can execute up to 26 operations such as add, subtract, compare with 24 values, etc. in less than 3 nanoseconds. It has the capability of fast data exchange (2×2, 3×3, 5×5…) with neighboring processors and can execute uninterruptable complex algorithms for a time longer than the time between two consecutive input data sets by adding layers of 3D-Flow processors communicating through a bypass switch assuring zero dead-time. > > The 3D-Flow OPRA could be considered the third generation of electronic instruments, following the invention of the Oscilloscope and the invention of the Logic State Analyzer. The oscilloscope was invented in the late 19th century. The Logic State Analyzer was invented in 1973 when computers required to visualize a large number of signals that the oscilloscope had trouble handling. > > The 3D-Flow OPRA can execute users’ desired programmable complex Object Pattern Real-Time Recognition Algorithms (OPRA) comparing the desired reference object (shape and detailed characteristics) with billions of objects per second, while sustaining an input data rate of several million frames per seconds, with zero dead-time. > > … > > The author proved the feasibility and functionality in hardware on two modular boards each having 68 x 3D-Flow processors, suitable for building 3D-Flow systems for matrices of any size transducers, and he has now for the first time detailed the design of all components needed to build 3D-Flow systems in two modular form factors: VXI boards 36.6 cm x 40 cm and VME boards 16 cm x 23.3 cm. A total of fifty-nine quotes to build all parts have been provided by reputable industries. To prove feasibility and competitiveness, the inventor received two or three quotes from different companies for the construction of the same part. For example: One crate of VXI boards for applications in discovering new particles with approximately 50,000 x 3D-Flow processors contained in a 36 cm cube can handle up to 8,192 channels at 1.3TB/sec costing approximately $100,000 (based on quotes received). One crate of VME boards for applications in medical imaging and multi-lens cameras with 14,500 x 3D-Flow processors contained in a 16 cm cube can handle up to 2,304 channels at 368GB/sec at an approximate cost of $50,000 (based on quotes received). The selling price of these systems will be determined by the market value set by the company commercializing the product. The inventor refuted with scientific evidence the rejection claims by the 2016 IEEE reviewers and CMS Spokesperson [4,5], however, no scientific calculations, evidence, or proofs were provided by the reviewers to support their rejection claims. > > However, I will be looking forward to receive your reference to a system that you know providing performance similar to my 3D-Flow OPRA. > > Sincerely, > > Dario Crosetto > > From: IEEE 2018 NSS/MIC/RTSD [mailto:abstract@eventclass.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 9:32 AM > To: Dario Crosetto > Cc: info@3d-computing.com > Subject: 2018 NSS Reject Notice for Abstract #2122 > > Dear Dario, > > We regret to inform you that your abstract (#2122) “3D-FLOW OPRA for Level-1 Trigger: A Breakthrough Invention Capable of Extracting ALL Valuable Information from Radiation Providing a Very Powerful Tool to Discover New Particles, Reduce HEP Costs, Advance Science and Benefit Humanity” has not been accepted for presentation in the 2018 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. > > The decision was made by the NSS Program Committee based on the reviewers’ evaluations. Your submission was rated on Technical Merit, Originality & Innovation, and Significance by three reviewers. These reviews were then assessed by the Topic Convener(s) who provided a recommendation to the Program Chairs and we are the ones who made the final decision. If you would like detailed feedback regarding why your submission was not accepted, please respond to this message. > > We would like to thank you for your submission and hope you will submit again in the future. In addition, we hope to see you in Sydney. > > Sincerely, > Craig Woody & Geoffrey Taylor > 2018 NSS Program Chairs |
|
|
